Log in

View Full Version : Philosophy in Les Miserables



Lardlad95
31st July 2004, 23:38
Not delving into the other sections of the book I want to start a discussion on this exchange from book one. Here is the excerpt that I wish to discuss.


The senator resumed:—

"I hate Diderot; he is an ideologist, a declaimer, and a revolutionist, a believer in God at bottom, and more bigoted than Voltaire. Voltaire made sport of Needham, and he was wrong, for Needham's eels prove that God is useless. A drop of vinegar in a spoonful of flour paste supplies the fiat lux. Suppose the drop to be larger and the spoonful bigger; you have the world. Man is the eel. Then what is the good of the Eternal Father? The Jehovah hypothesis tires me, Bishop. It is good for nothing but to produce shallow people, whose reasoning is hollow. Down with that great All, which torments me! Hurrah for Zero which leaves me in peace! Between you and me, and in order to empty my sack, and make confession to my pastor, as it behooves me to do, I will admit to you that I have good sense. I am not enthusiastic over your Jesus, who preaches renunciation and sacrifice to the last extremity. 'Tis the counsel of an avaricious man to beggars. Renunciation; why? Sacrifice; to what end? I do not see one wolf immolating himself for the happiness of another wolf. Let us stick to nature, then. We are at the top; let us have a superior philosophy. What is the advantage of being at the top, if one sees no further than the end of other people's noses? Let us live merrily. Life is all. That man has another future elsewhere, on high, below, anywhere, I don't believe; not one single word of it. Ah! sacrifice and renunciation are recommended to me; I must take heed to everything I do; I must cudgel my brains over good and evil, over the just and the unjust, over the fas and the nefas. Why? Because I shall have to render an account of my actions. When? After death. What a fine dream! After my death it will be a very clever person who can catch me. Have a handful of dust seized by a shadow-hand, if you can. Let us tell the truth, we who are initiated, and who have raised the veil of Isis: there is no such thing as either good or evil; there is vegetation. Let us seek the real. Let us get to the bottom of it. Let us go into it thoroughly. What the deuce! let us go to the bottom of it! We must scent out the truth; dig in the earth for it, and seize it. Then it gives you exquisite joys. Then you grow strong, and you laugh. I am square on the bottom, I am. Immortality, Bishop, is a chance, a waiting for dead men's shoes. Ah! what a charming promise! trust to it, if you like! What a fine lot Adam has! We are souls, and we shall be angels, with blue wings on our shoulder-blades. Do come to my assistance: is it not Tertullian who says that the blessed shall travel from star to star? Very well. We shall be the grasshoppers of the stars. And then, besides, we shall see God. Ta, ta, ta! What twaddle all these paradises are! God is a nonsensical monster. I would not say that in the Moniteur, egad! but I may whisper it among friends. Inter pocula. To sacrifice the world to paradise is to let slip the prey for the shadow. Be the dupe of the infinite! I'm not such a fool. I am a nought. I call myself Monsieur le Comte Nought, senator. Did I exist before my birth? No. Shall I exist after death? No. What am I? A little dust collected in an organism. What am I to do on this earth? The choice rests with me: suffer or enjoy. Whither will suffering lead me? To nothingness; but I shall have suffered. Whither will enjoyment lead me? To nothingness; but I shall have enjoyed myself. My choice is made. One must eat or be eaten. I shall eat. It is better to be the tooth than the grass. Such is my wisdom. After which, go whither I push thee, the grave-digger is there; the Pantheon for some of us: all falls into the great hole. End. Finis. Total liquidation. This is the vanishing-point. Death is death, believe me. I laugh at the idea of there being any one who has anything to tell me on that subject. Fables of nurses; bugaboo for children; Jehovah for men. No; our to-morrow is the night. Beyond the tomb there is nothing but equal nothingness. You have been Sardanapalus, you have been Vincent de Paul—it makes no difference. That is the truth. Then live your life, above all things. Make use of your _I_ while you have it. In truth, Bishop, I tell you that I have a philosophy of my own, and I have my philosophers. I don't let myself be taken in with that nonsense. Of course, there must be something for those who are down,—for the barefooted beggars, knife-grinders, and miserable wretches. Legends, chimeras, the soul, immortality, paradise, the stars, are provided for them to swallow. They gobble it down. They spread it on their dry bread. He who has nothing else has the good. God. That is the least he can have. I oppose no objection to that; but I reserve Monsieur Naigeon for myself. The good God is good for the populace."

The Bishop clapped his hands.

"That's talking!" he exclaimed. "What an excellent and really marvellous thing is this materialism! Not every one who wants it can have it. Ah! when one does have it, one is no longer a dupe, one does not stupidly allow one's self to be exiled like Cato, nor stoned like Stephen, nor burned alive like Jeanne d'Arc. Those who have succeeded in procuring this admirable materialism have the joy of feeling themselves irresponsible, and of thinking that they can devour everything without uneasiness,—places, sinecures, dignities, power, whether well or ill acquired, lucrative recantations, useful treacheries, savory capitulations of conscience,—and that they shall enter the tomb with their digestion accomplished. How agreeable that is! I do not say that with reference to you, senator. Nevertheless, it is impossible for me to refrain from congratulating you. You great lords have, so you say, a philosophy of your own, and for yourselves, which is exquisite, refined, accessible to the rich alone, good for all sauces, and which seasons the voluptuousness of life admirably. This philosophy has been extracted from the depths, and unearthed by special seekers. But you are good-natured princes, and you do not think it a bad thing that belief in the good God should constitute the philosophy of the people, very much as the goose stuffed with chestnuts is the truffled turkey of the poor."



Now I find this interesting because while the Senator is teh athiest the Bishop is concerned with the working class people...or in this case the peasantry. This seems to be an exact reverse of what goes on here. Usually the athiest communists are concerned with teh people. INstead the athiest is an elitist.

What do you make of these two people and their statements?

Pedro Alonso Lopez
1st August 2004, 14:25
I see no reason why an atheist has to be communist or socialist. Many of the elite have always seen through religion because they are the educated classes and have no need for solace when they are comfortable in this world.

The Bishop quite simply is a sentimentalist.

Lardlad95
2nd August 2004, 18:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:25 PM
I see no reason why an atheist has to be communist or socialist. Many of the elite have always seen through religion because they are the educated classes and have no need for solace when they are comfortable in this world.

The Bishop quite simply is a sentimentalist.
What you said about the athiest is indeed true. What prupose do the wealthy have for religion. However what I'm more interested in is the fact that the vast majority of people here seem to think that the religious leaders in the world are incapable of wanting to genuinely help the poor. As if they are in the position they are in simply to control people.

Pedro Alonso Lopez
2nd August 2004, 18:30
Sometimes you get an idea into your head that dosent translate into reality.

My local priest is a very geniune guy, in fact most of the religious crowd where I live are. They are well aware from talking to me I hate religion, would like to wipe it out etc yet still talk to me about how I'm doing in college.

Religion as a concept is the powerful ugly force, not the drones who preach it, they honestly believe they are doing 'good' and often try to do just that.

redstar2000
3rd August 2004, 01:10
Les Miserables is fiction.

You're allowed to make up stuff -- like bishops that "care" about ordinary people -- when you're writing fiction.

It's not supposed to be "true".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Pedro Alonso Lopez
3rd August 2004, 07:23
Yes Redstar because in reality all Bishops go around hating the masses, they sit alone in rooms and look with contempt at the peasants laughing hysterically at their immense power.

Lardlad95
4th August 2004, 03:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:10 AM
Les Miserables is fiction.

You're allowed to make up stuff -- like bishops that "care" about ordinary people -- when you're writing fiction.

It's not supposed to be "true".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
So you're asserting that there is no possibility of a bishop who isn't evil?

redstar2000
4th August 2004, 16:26
So you're asserting that there is no possibility of a bishop who isn't evil?

"Evil" is a rather fuzzy term and not very useful.

Professional clergymen as a group are interested in their own power, wealth, prestige, etc. On very rare occasions, an individual clergyman may temporarily set such concerns aside and devote some attention to the material well-being of his "flock"...though that attention is always limited.

Can you imagine, for example, a bishop ever saying "the way the church treats poor people is outrageous; I quit!"?

It never happens.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95
4th August 2004, 19:10
Professional clergymen as a group are interested in their own power, wealth, prestige, etc. On very rare occasions, an individual clergyman may temporarily set such concerns aside and devote some attention to the material well-being of his "flock"...though that attention is always limited.

As a group...do you mean on average? I find it very hard to believe that every single solitary clergyman is concerned with nothing more than their own power. I agree that their are alot. Hell the head pastor of Mt. Zion (A Church/Empire that has 3 locations and owns shopping centers, clubs, etc.) makes 1.5 million a year.

However this can not always be the case. What about the ones that choose to live in squalid 3rd world conditions?


Can you imagine, for example, a bishop ever saying "the way the church treats poor people is outrageous; I quit!"?

It never happens.


Of course it wouldn't happen they aren't operating from a base that asserts that religion is bad in and of it's self

redstar2000
5th August 2004, 02:44
I find it very hard to believe that every single solitary clergyman is concerned with nothing more than their own power.

They may be "concerned" with many things; their golf score, their whiskey supply, their chances with the new altar-boy.

In their more serious moments, other "concerns" might arise: declining attendance at church services; the fall in contributions; the state of the church's roof.

But, in one sense or another, they want to "move up"...the biggest thing in the mind of a bishop is becoming an arch-bishop or (hold your breath) a cardinal. When you make "cardinal" then the top-spot is (potentially) just a heart-beat away. :D If there were such a thing as an honest cardinal, he'd pray for the pope's death ten times a day! :lol:


What about the ones that choose to live in squalid 3rd world conditions?

"Choose" is the operative word here. Nearly all third-world priests & pastors have those "squalid" jobs because they were born into squalor themselves.

They "chose" the clergy because it seemed like a better (just a little better) job than the other options in Shantytown, Brazil.

A bishop or cardinal wouldn't enter Shantytown with anything less than an armored convoy and a couple of small tanks!

Again, use your imagination. Imagine a bishop or some other "Lord Spiritual" renouncing all the pomp and status and "good living" and going back to being a simple priest...and not in suburbia but in the slums of Caracas.

If you can wrap your brain around that one, then flying pigs will be no problem for you at all. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

percept¡on
5th August 2004, 14:59
RedStar, you ever heard of Liberation Theology? Those bishops seemed quite concerned with the plight of the masses.

redstar2000
7th August 2004, 04:41
Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 5 2004, 09:59 AM
RedStar, you ever heard of Liberation Theology? Those bishops seemed quite concerned with the plight of the masses.
All the time. *yawns* It's always brought up when the self-serving activities of the clergy are discussed.

And I always have to make the same response: the whole purpose of "Liberation Theology" was to make the Catholic Church relevant again.

Poor peasants in Central and South America were beginning to turn away from the church and towards...Guevara-ism. Or, at least, this was "the great fear" in the minds of the "left" Jesuits who came up with that crap.

So, let's borrow (steal) some scraps and tatters of Marxist rhetoric, throw in some land re-distribution (but not enough to actually make any real difference)..."run it up the flagpole and see who salutes".

Did they actually help any poor peasants get some land? Beats me.

Was that their real purpose?

No.

What's always foremost in their minds is that "atheistic communism" stands poised to put them out of business. If they sometimes feel the necessity of making some temporary concessions to the poor in order to retain their ideological "market-share", then they'll do that. And praise themselves for doing it.

That doesn't fool me and shouldn't fool you or anyone.

If they were serious about revolution, then they'd dump the godcrap and join existing revolutionary movements or start new ones.

They have not done so nor is there any reason to anticipate that they will ever do so. What they really want is to be able to continue running their dirty little racket "even under the red flag".

I predict they will be disappointed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95
7th August 2004, 16:38
They may be "concerned" with many things; their golf score, their whiskey supply, their chances with the new altar-boy

As if your ever thought you have is about how to help the working class. If it was you wouldn't bee here....ever.


In their more serious moments, other "concerns" might arise: declining attendance at church services; the fall in contributions; the state of the church's roof.

You automatically assume that these thoughts are negative don't you? The one about contirbutions maybe. But why shouldn't he be concerned that there is a decline in attendance? After all he is a christian.


But, in one sense or another, they want to "move up"...the biggest thing in the mind of a bishop is becoming an arch-bishop or (hold your breath) a cardinal. When you make "cardinal" then the top-spot is (potentially) just a heart-beat away. :D If there were such a thing as an honest cardinal, he'd pray for the pope's death ten times a day! :lol:


Redstar...I thought we were cool...why didn't you tell me you became a mind reader. Your entire arguement is speculation. You have no way of knowing what these men are thinking. Undoubtedly some are, but of course undoubtedly some aren't. you make a blanket statement regarding something you can't prove.




"Choose" is the operative word here. Nearly all third-world priests & pastors have those "squalid" jobs because they were born into squalor themselves.

But according to you being int he clergy is all about power. What kind of power and privilege do you get when you live in the same shitty house your congregation does?


.

They "chose" the clergy because it seemed like a better (just a little better) job than the other options in Shantytown, Brazil.

If that was their real concern then why not go into drug trafficing, kidnapping, or just robbing people. All are more lucrative.



A bishop or cardinal wouldn't enter Shantytown with anything less than an armored convoy and a couple of small tanks!


Once again that is an assumption, not something you know.


Again, use your imagination. Imagine a bishop or some other "Lord Spiritual" renouncing all the pomp and status and "good living" and going back to being a simple priest...and not in suburbia but in the slums of Caracas.


Stranger things have happened. Though I will concede that it's unlikely.

redstar2000
7th August 2004, 23:27
That was an extraordinary post, LL95...you disputed every point I made and then, at the end, you ended up agreeing with me -- or at least implying agreement.

If "all" my suppositions are "wrong", then what chain of reasoning leads you to "concede" that bishops are "unlikely" to renounce their luxury and "serve the poor"?

All of the things I've said about those hustlers don't involve "mind-reading"...I've actually read books about bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes, etc. (not many, but enough!).

Their public behavior is sufficient demonstration of where their real interests lie...and it has never been with the poor.

But, there is one comment you made that I must dispute...


As if every thought you have is about how to help the working class. If it was, you wouldn't be here....ever.

While I make no claims to proletarian "sainthood", there is an excellent reason for me to be here as much as I can.

Of all the people that come to this board, a few will become serious revolutionaries. If I can pass on to them what I've learned in my own political experiences, then there's a good chance that they will not make the same fuckups that my generation did in the last century.

I can't think of anything that would "help" the working class more than serious revolutionaries who are qualitatively better than we were back then.

Can you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95
12th August 2004, 14:06
That was an extraordinary post, LL95...you disputed every point I made and then, at the end, you ended up agreeing with me -- or at least implying agreement.


I agreed that it would be unlikely for someone, anyone, to give up luxuries to which they'd become accustomed. This has no corralation to them being greedy, or them stop caring about others. I don't have to give up my computer and live in a cardboard box to care about the working class. And niether does anyone else. If you feel that you need to, by all means go for it. But it appears to me that anyone who would is doing so out of self rightousness.


If "all" my suppositions are "wrong", then what chain of reasoning leads you to "concede" that bishops are "unlikely" to renounce their luxury and "serve the poor"?

Because most people are unlikely to. That has nothing to do with how they feel regarding the working class. Do you think for a moment that I'd go back to that trailer where I was covered in fleas, had roaches in my clothes(which by the way I had very little of). I wouldn't go back to prove that I care about the people.




Their public behavior is sufficient demonstration of where their real interests lie...and it has never been with the poor


Well shit tell that to the priest who gave my dad a job, and money when we were dirt fucking poor. And I don't even believe in the religion that he represented.


Of all the people that come to this board, a few will become serious revolutionaries. If I can pass on to them what I've learned in my own political experiences, then there's a good chance that they will not make the same fuckups that my generation did in the last century.

I can't think of anything that would "help" the working class more than serious revolutionaries who are qualitatively better than we were back then.

I have no problems with that. And I amongst many other appreciate what you are doing in passing on your experiencce and knowledge. Though I still don't believe that giving up what you have has any correlation with your commitment to revolution. I view people who do that as self rightous. Like someone openly boasting about how much they give to charity. There are of course people who do it because they truly want to. But we can not discount people simply because of what they have. Shit Che grew up in a family of privilage. They weren't exactly rich but they were privilege.

I'm not saying of course that should the time come where I need to go join the revolution that I wouldn't. Though for the time being nothing is accomplished by me going back to have my clothes stay unwashed for weeks at a time.

Lardlad95
12th August 2004, 14:08
oh and sorry about the late reply, my cousin messed up the computer.